Campaigners reject Helius' biomass plans for Southampton

A RENEWED bid for a £300m power station in Southampton has been rejected by local campaigners and city politicians.

Helius Energy hopes to win over doubters with its latest plans for a 100 megawatt wood-fuelled power station in the western docks.

Last year the plan sparked outrage from residents living yards away from the proposed site who feared the impact of pollution on their health.

Now details of a new plan has been released ahead of a 12 week consultation period
during which the company hopes to win people round with its revised plan which will see it moved back a further 125m, its height reduced and three new possible designs.

Its chimney stack has also been increased to 100 m to avoid air pollution in the local area.

But No Southampton Biomass campaigner Eloisa Gil-Arranz said: “They have put it in a much better outfit and cosmetically lifted it, but effectively the proposal is not changed. It's still a huge
power station.

“They have effectively moved it two football pitches away from people's homes.

“The thing I find really disappointing is the way they are promoting it. They are manipulating us to ask which of the three designs we like best but they have lost touch with the fact that we don't
want a power station.”

I don't think so Osprey, although yes the location is ridiculous!. I didn't know much about biomass before this (except for the home small versions) but when you read up about it, Richard Williams sums it up it's 'Greenwash' the government give huge subsidies but long-term it's neither green nor sustainable. If you'd like to read some more check out the No Biomass website which contains some information about biomass, different types, etc. There have been some very ill-informed and abusive people on here in the past. I hope that they will read up on the subject and base their decisions on ALL arguments...

http://nosouthampton
biomass.co.uk/biomas
s_fuel.html

A good informed debate is a decent one :)

I don't think so Osprey, although yes the location is ridiculous!. I didn't know much about biomass before this (except for the home small versions) but when you read up about it, Richard Williams sums it up it's 'Greenwash' the government give huge subsidies but long-term it's neither green nor sustainable. If you'd like to read some more check out the No Biomass website which contains some information about biomass, different types, etc. There have been some very ill-informed and abusive people on here in the past. I hope that they will read up on the subject and base their decisions on ALL arguments...
http://nosouthampton
biomass.co.uk/biomas
s_fuel.html
A good informed debate is a decent one :)freemantlegirl2

What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”

What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”The Salv

The Salv wrote:
What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”

Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.

[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”[/p][/quote]Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.Rhombus

The Salv wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”

Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.

Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.

[quote][p][bold]Rhombus[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”[/p][/quote]Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.[/p][/quote]Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.The Salv

The Salv wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”

Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.

Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.

99% of them so called jobs will not be jobs for the locals, like the building of the plant will be done mostly by the building contractors traveling work force, and it will not be 240 jobs from day one to the day its finished, more than likely there will be only about 30 people working there at one time, the jobs that will come after the plant is finished you will have dock workers doing the quay side stuff so no extra full time jobs there, and transport will not employ more people, the only extra jobs will be the techical staff who will be bought in to run the place from any where around the world.

[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rhombus[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”[/p][/quote]Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.[/p][/quote]Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.[/p][/quote]99% of them so called jobs will not be jobs for the locals, like the building of the plant will be done mostly by the building contractors traveling work force, and it will not be 240 jobs from day one to the day its finished, more than likely there will be only about 30 people working there at one time, the jobs that will come after the plant is finished you will have dock workers doing the quay side stuff so no extra full time jobs there, and transport will not employ more people, the only extra jobs will be the techical staff who will be bought in to run the place from any where around the world.southy

“The thing I find really disappointing is the way they are promoting it. They are manipulating us to ask which of the three designs we like best but they have lost touch with the fact that we don't want a power station.”

LOL - this quote from Eloisa Gil-Arranz made me laugh... Perhaps if you said to the "locals" that in the future they will not be able to power their B-Boxes, Playstations, TVs, DVDs, Cookers, lights, storage heaters - they may just change their minds!

Reality check people - If we do not build new power stations - we will suffer rolling black-outs when the fossil fuels and nuclear power stations become overwhelmed by demand.

I do understand that residents don't want to have to look at it and it would be an eye-sore, but realistically people - it is going to ruin someone's views wherever you build it - and they do need to build it!

So, either stop using electricity or get used to the idea that these power stations will be have to be built somewhere!

“The thing I find really disappointing is the way they are promoting it. They are manipulating us to ask which of the three designs we like best but they have lost touch with the fact that we don't want a power station.”
LOL - this quote from Eloisa Gil-Arranz made me laugh... Perhaps if you said to the "locals" that in the future they will not be able to power their B-Boxes, Playstations, TVs, DVDs, Cookers, lights, storage heaters - they may just change their minds!
Reality check people - If we do not build new power stations - we will suffer rolling black-outs when the fossil fuels and nuclear power stations become overwhelmed by demand.
I do understand that residents don't want to have to look at it and it would be an eye-sore, but realistically people - it is going to ruin someone's views wherever you build it - and they do need to build it!
So, either stop using electricity or get used to the idea that these power stations will be have to be built somewhere!soton-mike80

People are making the mistake in thinking this is a green energy its not. Not even Helius claims it is a green engery, they only make the statement its a Bio-fuel energy.
Another error is that it reduces the Carbon Foot Print, it do not even do this, it releases the same amount of carbon that it soaks up while growing, it increases the cabon footprint though transport.

People are making the mistake in thinking this is a green energy its not. Not even Helius claims it is a green engery, they only make the statement its a Bio-fuel energy.
Another error is that it reduces the Carbon Foot Print, it do not even do this, it releases the same amount of carbon that it soaks up while growing, it increases the cabon footprint though transport.southy

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.Torchie1

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented outsouthy

For many years, up until the 1960's, a large coal power generating station (proabably bigger than the planned Biomass site) was sited at the bottom of Station Hill, where Toys R Us is now) ie close to housing, the railway station, city centre and adjacent to the Lido.
No harm came to any of the people who lived right on the doorstep.
People were less 'precious' then, of course.
With a major road and railway between the docks and the good people of Freemantle, is there really a problem?

For many years, up until the 1960's, a large coal power generating station (proabably bigger than the planned Biomass site) was sited at the bottom of Station Hill, where Toys R Us is now) ie close to housing, the railway station, city centre and adjacent to the Lido.
No harm came to any of the people who lived right on the doorstep.
People were less 'precious' then, of course.
With a major road and railway between the docks and the good people of Freemantle, is there really a problem?phil maccavity

phil maccavity wrote:
For many years, up until the 1960's, a large coal power generating station (proabably bigger than the planned Biomass site) was sited at the bottom of Station Hill, where Toys R Us is now) ie close to housing, the railway station, city centre and adjacent to the Lido.
No harm came to any of the people who lived right on the doorstep.
People were less 'precious' then, of course.
With a major road and railway between the docks and the good people of Freemantle, is there really a problem?

Did you ever see pictures of the area while it was still a coal power station, before the switch to gas power station. the area was black with soot, I can remember that old power station but not when it was a coal power station even when they pulled the place down there was still a lot of soot left around from the days when it use coal.

[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote:
For many years, up until the 1960's, a large coal power generating station (proabably bigger than the planned Biomass site) was sited at the bottom of Station Hill, where Toys R Us is now) ie close to housing, the railway station, city centre and adjacent to the Lido.
No harm came to any of the people who lived right on the doorstep.
People were less 'precious' then, of course.
With a major road and railway between the docks and the good people of Freemantle, is there really a problem?[/p][/quote]Did you ever see pictures of the area while it was still a coal power station, before the switch to gas power station. the area was black with soot, I can remember that old power station but not when it was a coal power station even when they pulled the place down there was still a lot of soot left around from the days when it use coal.southy

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

Torchie I just got out an old chart the Docking area at the moment is 500 meters long, 120 meters wide at a depth off 5.8 meters deep at the lowest astromical tide. it can be made into 1000 meters long very easy if need be.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out[/p][/quote]Torchie I just got out an old chart the Docking area at the moment is 500 meters long, 120 meters wide at a depth off 5.8 meters deep at the lowest astromical tide. it can be made into 1000 meters long very easy if need be.southy

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

You are wrong. There is no deepwater quay sufficient to dock a bulk carrier, no rail link and limited road links. And moreover the high stack means that those living nearby are at almost no risk of any pollution from flue gases whereas if you move it 10 miles away you are at higher risk. So in what way is the location "better"?

[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]You are wrong. There is no deepwater quay sufficient to dock a bulk carrier, no rail link and limited road links. And moreover the high stack means that those living nearby are at almost no risk of any pollution from flue gases whereas if you move it 10 miles away you are at higher risk. So in what way is the location "better"?Andy Locks Heath

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

It doesn't surprise me to learn that the nationalised CEGB planned a power station under a Labour government that was powered by coal produced by another nationalised industry, the NCB even though it was a short pipeline length from the biggest refinery in the UK which could sell a cheap product to fire the power station boilers. Aside from that, the small tankers that visit the site don't require the same depth as much larger coal carrying vessels and in turn the vessels carrying wood will require greater depth because they will be even bigger in order to make the proposition viable. You are also assuming that the land can be rented out but N-Power are very limited on what they can do because they are within the boundary of the National Park Authority.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out[/p][/quote]It doesn't surprise me to learn that the nationalised CEGB planned a power station under a Labour government that was powered by coal produced by another nationalised industry, the NCB even though it was a short pipeline length from the biggest refinery in the UK which could sell a cheap product to fire the power station boilers. Aside from that, the small tankers that visit the site don't require the same depth as much larger coal carrying vessels and in turn the vessels carrying wood will require greater depth because they will be even bigger in order to make the proposition viable. You are also assuming that the land can be rented out but N-Power are very limited on what they can do because they are within the boundary of the National Park Authority.Torchie1

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
I don't think so Osprey, although yes the location is ridiculous!. I didn't know much about biomass before this (except for the home small versions) but when you read up about it, Richard Williams sums it up it's 'Greenwash' the government give huge subsidies but long-term it's neither green nor sustainable. If you'd like to read some more check out the No Biomass website which contains some information about biomass, different types, etc. There have been some very ill-informed and abusive people on here in the past. I hope that they will read up on the subject and base their decisions on ALL arguments...

http://nosouthampton

biomass.co.uk/biomas

s_fuel.html

A good informed debate is a decent one :)

I hope you are not classing me as ill informed and abusive, but I have consistently pointed out factual errors, misinformation and subjective hyperbole and you have consistently failed to check your own misapprehensions, so you should be careful using that argument against others. As wih all campaigning websites, the small kernel of good information is spoiled by a burden of pointless, irrelevant subjective nonsense. How you can include the impact of local children seeing the power station or even more nonsensically - cruise tourists having their cruises spoiled by seeing it - simply makes the rest of your arguments look suspect. If you and Freefinker want to get into detailed the economic analysis for the hundredth time it might be worthwhile if only you modified the repeated factual errors but you don't - you just persist with falsehoods.

[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote:
I don't think so Osprey, although yes the location is ridiculous!. I didn't know much about biomass before this (except for the home small versions) but when you read up about it, Richard Williams sums it up it's 'Greenwash' the government give huge subsidies but long-term it's neither green nor sustainable. If you'd like to read some more check out the No Biomass website which contains some information about biomass, different types, etc. There have been some very ill-informed and abusive people on here in the past. I hope that they will read up on the subject and base their decisions on ALL arguments...
http://nosouthampton
biomass.co.uk/biomas
s_fuel.html
A good informed debate is a decent one :)[/p][/quote]I hope you are not classing me as ill informed and abusive, but I have consistently pointed out factual errors, misinformation and subjective hyperbole and you have consistently failed to check your own misapprehensions, so you should be careful using that argument against others. As wih all campaigning websites, the small kernel of good information is spoiled by a burden of pointless, irrelevant subjective nonsense. How you can include the impact of local children seeing the power station or even more nonsensically - cruise tourists having their cruises spoiled by seeing it - simply makes the rest of your arguments look suspect. If you and Freefinker want to get into detailed the economic analysis for the hundredth time it might be worthwhile if only you modified the repeated factual errors but you don't - you just persist with falsehoods.Andy Locks Heath

The Salv wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”

Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.

Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.

99% of them so called jobs will not be jobs for the locals, like the building of the plant will be done mostly by the building contractors traveling work force, and it will not be 240 jobs from day one to the day its finished, more than likely there will be only about 30 people working there at one time, the jobs that will come after the plant is finished you will have dock workers doing the quay side stuff so no extra full time jobs there, and transport will not employ more people, the only extra jobs will be the techical staff who will be bought in to run the place from any where around the world.

Southy you ought to know that any factory only employs a small number of jobs - but its presence sustains hundreds of others, Every single interaction with the local environment whether it is delivering food to the canteen or taking away the rubbish, sustains jobs. Don't you remember how important a pit employing 300 miners was to a village of 7500 people and how Socialist Worker used this very same argument of recycling wealth and secondary jobs to argue against pit closures? Now you are taking a tory view of job numbers. Why have you changed?

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rhombus[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”[/p][/quote]Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.[/p][/quote]Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.[/p][/quote]99% of them so called jobs will not be jobs for the locals, like the building of the plant will be done mostly by the building contractors traveling work force, and it will not be 240 jobs from day one to the day its finished, more than likely there will be only about 30 people working there at one time, the jobs that will come after the plant is finished you will have dock workers doing the quay side stuff so no extra full time jobs there, and transport will not employ more people, the only extra jobs will be the techical staff who will be bought in to run the place from any where around the world.[/p][/quote]Southy you ought to know that any factory only employs a small number of jobs - but its presence sustains hundreds of others, Every single interaction with the local environment whether it is delivering food to the canteen or taking away the rubbish, sustains jobs. Don't you remember how important a pit employing 300 miners was to a village of 7500 people and how Socialist Worker used this very same argument of recycling wealth and secondary jobs to argue against pit closures? Now you are taking a tory view of job numbers. Why have you changed?Andy Locks Heath

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

Torchie I just got out an old chart the Docking area at the moment is 500 meters long, 120 meters wide at a depth off 5.8 meters deep at the lowest astromical tide. it can be made into 1000 meters long very easy if need be.

As you say, an 'old' docking chart which doesn't indicate that the unnecessary dredging has continued for fifty years when no vessel required it. As for how easy it is to clear the channel, I'm sure it is but why do this when a few miles up the water there are berths with the required depth, no width restrictions, no NPA restrictions and freely available industrial land? I'd have a lot more respect if you just admitted to being a NIMBY instead of turning up spurious reasons why the Helius plan can't go ahead as proposed.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out[/p][/quote]Torchie I just got out an old chart the Docking area at the moment is 500 meters long, 120 meters wide at a depth off 5.8 meters deep at the lowest astromical tide. it can be made into 1000 meters long very easy if need be.[/p][/quote]As you say, an 'old' docking chart which doesn't indicate that the unnecessary dredging has continued for fifty years when no vessel required it. As for how easy it is to clear the channel, I'm sure it is but why do this when a few miles up the water there are berths with the required depth, no width restrictions, no NPA restrictions and freely available industrial land? I'd have a lot more respect if you just admitted to being a NIMBY instead of turning up spurious reasons why the Helius plan can't go ahead as proposed.Torchie1

There are lots of arguments both for and against this. Do we need more power to sustain our usage - of course we do. Would you want this built by your house - of course not. Will it create jobs - yes. Will those jobs be for local workers – perhaps, perhaps not. Is it Green and sustainable – I’m not convinced that it is. But I would ask, regardless of the location, the jobs etc... is this actually the right solution to the problem, and what exactly is the problem? I don't think either of these have been addressed. There seems to be a hidden agenda to try and push for this to be built and that makes me somewhat suspicious.

There are lots of arguments both for and against this. Do we need more power to sustain our usage - of course we do. Would you want this built by your house - of course not. Will it create jobs - yes. Will those jobs be for local workers – perhaps, perhaps not. Is it Green and sustainable – I’m not convinced that it is. But I would ask, regardless of the location, the jobs etc... is this actually the right solution to the problem, and what exactly is the problem? I don't think either of these have been addressed. There seems to be a hidden agenda to try and push for this to be built and that makes me somewhat suspicious.lewissv

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

Southy that is rubbish. This power station was planned before the oil crisis of 1973 made oil fired stations uneconomical. It does not burn "waste" oil as you say- it burns heavy bunker fuel oil supplied by pipeline from the oil refinery next door and was designed from the beginning to do so - hence its location. As for your coal idea You are getting confused with Fawley "B" which was planned as a coal fired plant in the early 80s but never built, and no deepwater channel was ever dredged because it never got past the planning stage. I still have all the plans in a box in my loft! You seem to be confusing the Fawley "A" cooling water channels with a deepwater quayside which is completely different and innapropriate.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out[/p][/quote]Southy that is rubbish. This power station was planned before the oil crisis of 1973 made oil fired stations uneconomical. It does not burn "waste" oil as you say- it burns heavy bunker fuel oil supplied by pipeline from the oil refinery next door and was designed from the beginning to do so - hence its location. As for your coal idea You are getting confused with Fawley "B" which was planned as a coal fired plant in the early 80s but never built, and no deepwater channel was ever dredged because it never got past the planning stage. I still have all the plans in a box in my loft! You seem to be confusing the Fawley "A" cooling water channels with a deepwater quayside which is completely different and innapropriate.Andy Locks Heath

freemantlegirl2 wrote: I don't think so Osprey, although yes the location is ridiculous!. I didn't know much about biomass before this (except for the home small versions) but when you read up about it, Richard Williams sums it up it's 'Greenwash' the government give huge subsidies but long-term it's neither green nor sustainable. If you'd like to read some more check out the No Biomass website which contains some information about biomass, different types, etc. There have been some very ill-informed and abusive people on here in the past. I hope that they will read up on the subject and base their decisions on ALL arguments... http://nosouthampton biomass.co.uk/biomas s_fuel.html A good informed debate is a decent one :)

I hope you are not classing me as ill informed and abusive, but I have consistently pointed out factual errors, misinformation and subjective hyperbole and you have consistently failed to check your own misapprehensions, so you should be careful using that argument against others. As wih all campaigning websites, the small kernel of good information is spoiled by a burden of pointless, irrelevant subjective nonsense. How you can include the impact of local children seeing the power station or even more nonsensically - cruise tourists having their cruises spoiled by seeing it - simply makes the rest of your arguments look suspect. If you and Freefinker want to get into detailed the economic analysis for the hundredth time it might be worthwhile if only you modified the repeated factual errors but you don't - you just persist with falsehoods.

Couldn't agree more.
She should just simply say (be honest) I don't want it near my house, regardless of any merits.

'A good debate where everyone agrees with me without question is a decent one...'

[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: I don't think so Osprey, although yes the location is ridiculous!. I didn't know much about biomass before this (except for the home small versions) but when you read up about it, Richard Williams sums it up it's 'Greenwash' the government give huge subsidies but long-term it's neither green nor sustainable. If you'd like to read some more check out the No Biomass website which contains some information about biomass, different types, etc. There have been some very ill-informed and abusive people on here in the past. I hope that they will read up on the subject and base their decisions on ALL arguments... http://nosouthampton biomass.co.uk/biomas s_fuel.html A good informed debate is a decent one :)[/p][/quote]I hope you are not classing me as ill informed and abusive, but I have consistently pointed out factual errors, misinformation and subjective hyperbole and you have consistently failed to check your own misapprehensions, so you should be careful using that argument against others. As wih all campaigning websites, the small kernel of good information is spoiled by a burden of pointless, irrelevant subjective nonsense. How you can include the impact of local children seeing the power station or even more nonsensically - cruise tourists having their cruises spoiled by seeing it - simply makes the rest of your arguments look suspect. If you and Freefinker want to get into detailed the economic analysis for the hundredth time it might be worthwhile if only you modified the repeated factual errors but you don't - you just persist with falsehoods.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more.
She should just simply say (be honest) I don't want it near my house, regardless of any merits.
'A good debate where everyone agrees with me without question is a decent one...'Ted Rogers

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

It doesn't surprise me to learn that the nationalised CEGB planned a power station under a Labour government that was powered by coal produced by another nationalised industry, the NCB even though it was a short pipeline length from the biggest refinery in the UK which could sell a cheap product to fire the power station boilers. Aside from that, the small tankers that visit the site don't require the same depth as much larger coal carrying vessels and in turn the vessels carrying wood will require greater depth because they will be even bigger in order to make the proposition viable. You are also assuming that the land can be rented out but N-Power are very limited on what they can do because they are within the boundary of the National Park Authority.

You need to know when plans for the power station was drawn up, the Refinery was only just got pass the planning stage, and Churchill was in power not Labour. The refinery jetty is not the power station dock they are at different locations and there was only one time a ship as been moored there and that was a large iron ore bulk carrier in the 80's larger than any wood chip carrier, there has been no other ship in the intake channel. and having a depth of 5.8 below low water is more than enough depth for any wood ship.
The land comes under New Forest district council and not the National Park Authority

[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out[/p][/quote]It doesn't surprise me to learn that the nationalised CEGB planned a power station under a Labour government that was powered by coal produced by another nationalised industry, the NCB even though it was a short pipeline length from the biggest refinery in the UK which could sell a cheap product to fire the power station boilers. Aside from that, the small tankers that visit the site don't require the same depth as much larger coal carrying vessels and in turn the vessels carrying wood will require greater depth because they will be even bigger in order to make the proposition viable. You are also assuming that the land can be rented out but N-Power are very limited on what they can do because they are within the boundary of the National Park Authority.[/p][/quote]You need to know when plans for the power station was drawn up, the Refinery was only just got pass the planning stage, and Churchill was in power not Labour. The refinery jetty is not the power station dock they are at different locations and there was only one time a ship as been moored there and that was a large iron ore bulk carrier in the 80's larger than any wood chip carrier, there has been no other ship in the intake channel. and having a depth of 5.8 below low water is more than enough depth for any wood ship.
The land comes under New Forest district council and not the National Park Authoritysouthy

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

Southy that is rubbish. This power station was planned before the oil crisis of 1973 made oil fired stations uneconomical. It does not burn &quot;waste" oil as you say- it burns heavy bunker fuel oil supplied by pipeline from the oil refinery next door and was designed from the beginning to do so - hence its location. As for your coal idea You are getting confused with Fawley "B" which was planned as a coal fired plant in the early 80s but never built, and no deepwater channel was ever dredged because it never got past the planning stage. I still have all the plans in a box in my loft! You seem to be confusing the Fawley "A" cooling water channels with a deepwater quayside which is completely different and innapropriate.

Andy thats why the deep water channel is on marine charts I given the measurement off the Docking area, Bunker oil is what is known as waste oil Andy, the plans for the power station was drawn up in the 50's.
The cooling water channel was where the 1000 meter dock was going to be, if you go down there you can still see the test piles that mark out the area of the dock

[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out[/p][/quote]Southy that is rubbish. This power station was planned before the oil crisis of 1973 made oil fired stations uneconomical. It does not burn "waste" oil as you say- it burns heavy bunker fuel oil supplied by pipeline from the oil refinery next door and was designed from the beginning to do so - hence its location. As for your coal idea You are getting confused with Fawley "B" which was planned as a coal fired plant in the early 80s but never built, and no deepwater channel was ever dredged because it never got past the planning stage. I still have all the plans in a box in my loft! You seem to be confusing the Fawley "A" cooling water channels with a deepwater quayside which is completely different and innapropriate.[/p][/quote]Andy thats why the deep water channel is on marine charts I given the measurement off the Docking area, Bunker oil is what is known as waste oil Andy, the plans for the power station was drawn up in the 50's.
The cooling water channel was where the 1000 meter dock was going to be, if you go down there you can still see the test piles that mark out the area of the docksouthy

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

Torchie I just got out an old chart the Docking area at the moment is 500 meters long, 120 meters wide at a depth off 5.8 meters deep at the lowest astromical tide. it can be made into 1000 meters long very easy if need be.

As you say, an 'old' docking chart which doesn't indicate that the unnecessary dredging has continued for fifty years when no vessel required it. As for how easy it is to clear the channel, I'm sure it is but why do this when a few miles up the water there are berths with the required depth, no width restrictions, no NPA restrictions and freely available industrial land? I'd have a lot more respect if you just admitted to being a NIMBY instead of turning up spurious reasons why the Helius plan can't go ahead as proposed.

I all ways said its in the wrong location.
It would not need dredging as it all ways been kept clear, and its more than wide enough its had an Iron ore bulk carrier lay up there for a few mths, and if it can take one of those ships it will be able to take any wood chip bulk carrier

[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out[/p][/quote]Torchie I just got out an old chart the Docking area at the moment is 500 meters long, 120 meters wide at a depth off 5.8 meters deep at the lowest astromical tide. it can be made into 1000 meters long very easy if need be.[/p][/quote]As you say, an 'old' docking chart which doesn't indicate that the unnecessary dredging has continued for fifty years when no vessel required it. As for how easy it is to clear the channel, I'm sure it is but why do this when a few miles up the water there are berths with the required depth, no width restrictions, no NPA restrictions and freely available industrial land? I'd have a lot more respect if you just admitted to being a NIMBY instead of turning up spurious reasons why the Helius plan can't go ahead as proposed.[/p][/quote]I all ways said its in the wrong location.
It would not need dredging as it all ways been kept clear, and its more than wide enough its had an Iron ore bulk carrier lay up there for a few mths, and if it can take one of those ships it will be able to take any wood chip bulk carriersouthy

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

It doesn't surprise me to learn that the nationalised CEGB planned a power station under a Labour government that was powered by coal produced by another nationalised industry, the NCB even though it was a short pipeline length from the biggest refinery in the UK which could sell a cheap product to fire the power station boilers. Aside from that, the small tankers that visit the site don't require the same depth as much larger coal carrying vessels and in turn the vessels carrying wood will require greater depth because they will be even bigger in order to make the proposition viable. You are also assuming that the land can be rented out but N-Power are very limited on what they can do because they are within the boundary of the National Park Authority.

You need to know when plans for the power station was drawn up, the Refinery was only just got pass the planning stage, and Churchill was in power not Labour. The refinery jetty is not the power station dock they are at different locations and there was only one time a ship as been moored there and that was a large iron ore bulk carrier in the 80's larger than any wood chip carrier, there has been no other ship in the intake channel. and having a depth of 5.8 below low water is more than enough depth for any wood ship.
The land comes under New Forest district council and not the National Park Authority

Usual ill informed rubbish Southy
Most of these big bulk ships have a minimum draft of 9 metres, most above 10m and then there is a required minimum 0.5m + of under keel clearance as the ships are not permitted to sit on the bottom at low water
Unless you can name the 'large iron ore bulk carrier in the 80's' I guess we will have to put this down to another figment of your colourful imagination!!!!!!!!!
!!!

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out[/p][/quote]It doesn't surprise me to learn that the nationalised CEGB planned a power station under a Labour government that was powered by coal produced by another nationalised industry, the NCB even though it was a short pipeline length from the biggest refinery in the UK which could sell a cheap product to fire the power station boilers. Aside from that, the small tankers that visit the site don't require the same depth as much larger coal carrying vessels and in turn the vessels carrying wood will require greater depth because they will be even bigger in order to make the proposition viable. You are also assuming that the land can be rented out but N-Power are very limited on what they can do because they are within the boundary of the National Park Authority.[/p][/quote]You need to know when plans for the power station was drawn up, the Refinery was only just got pass the planning stage, and Churchill was in power not Labour. The refinery jetty is not the power station dock they are at different locations and there was only one time a ship as been moored there and that was a large iron ore bulk carrier in the 80's larger than any wood chip carrier, there has been no other ship in the intake channel. and having a depth of 5.8 below low water is more than enough depth for any wood ship.
The land comes under New Forest district council and not the National Park Authority[/p][/quote]Usual ill informed rubbish Southy
Most of these big bulk ships have a minimum draft of 9 metres, most above 10m and then there is a required minimum 0.5m + of under keel clearance as the ships are not permitted to sit on the bottom at low water
Unless you can name the 'large iron ore bulk carrier in the 80's' I guess we will have to put this down to another figment of your colourful imagination!!!!!!!!!
!!!phil maccavity

Thank Christ the decision to grant permission isn't with the NIMBY no brigade or a city council no matter what colour who can't see the bigger picture.
Centrica has announced as it's raw materials are going up it will be looking to raise it's costs 15% this year.
If these people were complaining about losing the American dump with all it's tree's & wildlife I could agree with them to a point but no one complained about it as it was reclaimed land owned by the docks,
First they built the new road & the remainder of the land is a tip for many type of products.
One of these has caught fire billowing smoke all over the city how can they say if it was toxic or not? did they have people catching the smoke?
These NIMBY's prefer these scrap piles for the view? can't be for their health surely?
This company has changed it's design & has listened to the ones who actually have talked to them yet these NIMBY's still say NO.
I was born & bred in that area & with all the problems there this is nothing & it's a pity the NO brigade isn't as vocal about the problems instead of a Generator who's fire & safety measures will be far greater than a scrapheap

Thank Christ the decision to grant permission isn't with the NIMBY no brigade or a city council no matter what colour who can't see the bigger picture.
Centrica has announced as it's raw materials are going up it will be looking to raise it's costs 15% this year.
If these people were complaining about losing the American dump with all it's tree's & wildlife I could agree with them to a point but no one complained about it as it was reclaimed land owned by the docks,
First they built the new road & the remainder of the land is a tip for many type of products.
One of these has caught fire billowing smoke all over the city how can they say if it was toxic or not? did they have people catching the smoke?
These NIMBY's prefer these scrap piles for the view? can't be for their health surely?
This company has changed it's design & has listened to the ones who actually have talked to them yet these NIMBY's still say NO.
I was born & bred in that area & with all the problems there this is nothing & it's a pity the NO brigade isn't as vocal about the problems instead of a Generator who's fire & safety measures will be far greater than a scrapheaploosehead

Ask any logger in Canada and they will tell you that in the last 5 to 10 years they have lost their jobs in the thousands not just one or two people. If you inquire to the logging mills in Canada you will see that where once they were in almost every town and province now there are but one or possible two in the whole of British Columbia, one of the densest oldest forestry provinces in the world. Ask any paper producing mills in Canada or the states and you will hear that they cannot get the wood pulp to manufacture paper products, not even bathroom tissue of which ASDA sells millions of rolls a year. Britain did away with coal fires because of smog and every household burning coal had to then burn smokeless fuel. Wood is NOT smokeless, and pellets are a mix of wood chips and glue. Both of which are cancer causing. Southampton used to have the sausage factory along Millbook road. In summer the stench was unbearable for dozens of miles around depending upon the prevailing wind. Need i go on. We do NOT want or need this biomass unsustainable energy. The cost is far too great a burden to bear for any length of time.

Ask any logger in Canada and they will tell you that in the last 5 to 10 years they have lost their jobs in the thousands not just one or two people. If you inquire to the logging mills in Canada you will see that where once they were in almost every town and province now there are but one or possible two in the whole of British Columbia, one of the densest oldest forestry provinces in the world. Ask any paper producing mills in Canada or the states and you will hear that they cannot get the wood pulp to manufacture paper products, not even bathroom tissue of which ASDA sells millions of rolls a year. Britain did away with coal fires because of smog and every household burning coal had to then burn smokeless fuel. Wood is NOT smokeless, and pellets are a mix of wood chips and glue. Both of which are cancer causing. Southampton used to have the sausage factory along Millbook road. In summer the stench was unbearable for dozens of miles around depending upon the prevailing wind. Need i go on. We do NOT want or need this biomass unsustainable energy. The cost is far too great a burden to bear for any length of time.Cookiecutter

Britain has no tree's with which to speak off and the New Forest is a joke around the world with barely a tree to be seen oh lots of bushes and maybe the immigrants think them as tree's since most come from a dessert, Pakistan or Poland in today's Britain. But no matter how high you build the stack there is always fallout. I don't care how stringent rules and regulations are made there will always be someone who comes along and say Oppp! a valve stuck and it caused a leak. Or heaven forbid another earthquake comes along like in Japan and everything get washed out to sea. And then there's the oil platform out at sea that exploded in fire killing so many people fish and wildlife.
We really do need to think this biomass energy production through and use only the type of product that causes no damage to land, air or sea and burning wood, whether in pellet form or as broken furniture, is definitely not a good idea.

Britain has no tree's with which to speak off and the New Forest is a joke around the world with barely a tree to be seen oh lots of bushes and maybe the immigrants think them as tree's since most come from a dessert, Pakistan or Poland in today's Britain. But no matter how high you build the stack there is always fallout. I don't care how stringent rules and regulations are made there will always be someone who comes along and say Oppp! a valve stuck and it caused a leak. Or heaven forbid another earthquake comes along like in Japan and everything get washed out to sea. And then there's the oil platform out at sea that exploded in fire killing so many people fish and wildlife.
We really do need to think this biomass energy production through and use only the type of product that causes no damage to land, air or sea and burning wood, whether in pellet form or as broken furniture, is definitely not a good idea.Cookiecutter

Cookiecutter wrote:
Britain has no tree's with which to speak off and the New Forest is a joke around the world with barely a tree to be seen oh lots of bushes and maybe the immigrants think them as tree's since most come from a dessert, Pakistan or Poland in today's Britain. But no matter how high you build the stack there is always fallout. I don't care how stringent rules and regulations are made there will always be someone who comes along and say Oppp! a valve stuck and it caused a leak. Or heaven forbid another earthquake comes along like in Japan and everything get washed out to sea. And then there's the oil platform out at sea that exploded in fire killing so many people fish and wildlife.
We really do need to think this biomass energy production through and use only the type of product that causes no damage to land, air or sea and burning wood, whether in pellet form or as broken furniture, is definitely not a good idea.

........'Britain has no trees to with which to speak off'......
Nearly 7m acres of the Uk is designated as Forest ie nearly 12% of the land area.
Any way of minor consequence as according to Helius most of the product will be imported
Will be interested in the type of product that causes no damage to land, sea or air.
Is there one?

[quote][p][bold]Cookiecutter[/bold] wrote:
Britain has no tree's with which to speak off and the New Forest is a joke around the world with barely a tree to be seen oh lots of bushes and maybe the immigrants think them as tree's since most come from a dessert, Pakistan or Poland in today's Britain. But no matter how high you build the stack there is always fallout. I don't care how stringent rules and regulations are made there will always be someone who comes along and say Oppp! a valve stuck and it caused a leak. Or heaven forbid another earthquake comes along like in Japan and everything get washed out to sea. And then there's the oil platform out at sea that exploded in fire killing so many people fish and wildlife.
We really do need to think this biomass energy production through and use only the type of product that causes no damage to land, air or sea and burning wood, whether in pellet form or as broken furniture, is definitely not a good idea.[/p][/quote]........'Britain has no trees to with which to speak off'......
Nearly 7m acres of the Uk is designated as Forest ie nearly 12% of the land area.
Any way of minor consequence as according to Helius most of the product will be imported
Will be interested in the type of product that causes no damage to land, sea or air.
Is there one?phil maccavity

There are three main arguments here, (1) is location, (2) is need and (3) is it green. I don't think you could blame anybody for not wanting it on their doorstep, but that is a very weak argument as can be seen from the comments above, from my point of view i don't want to see the country littered with these mickey mouse power stations that i believe will have a very short lifespan i would prefer large nuclear power stations. Yes we do need power and if they don't start building nuclear power stations soon we will be short of power in years to come,nobody has yet come up with a viable alternative, wind farms that produce very little and then only with the right kind of wind, wave power and all of the other silly idea's. Is it GREEN yes(i joke) we are going to have ships bringing all sorts of fuel halfway round the world we are ruining land in other countries to provide us with some of the fuels used in these mickey mouse power stations so its about as green as the sky. So like i said before the only way forward is nuclear.

There are three main arguments here, (1) is location, (2) is need and (3) is it green. I don't think you could blame anybody for not wanting it on their doorstep, but that is a very weak argument as can be seen from the comments above, from my point of view i don't want to see the country littered with these mickey mouse power stations that i believe will have a very short lifespan i would prefer large nuclear power stations. Yes we do need power and if they don't start building nuclear power stations soon we will be short of power in years to come,nobody has yet come up with a viable alternative, wind farms that produce very little and then only with the right kind of wind, wave power and all of the other silly idea's. Is it GREEN yes(i joke) we are going to have ships bringing all sorts of fuel halfway round the world we are ruining land in other countries to provide us with some of the fuels used in these mickey mouse power stations so its about as green as the sky. So like i said before the only way forward is nuclear.ohec

ohec wrote:
There are three main arguments here, (1) is location, (2) is need and (3) is it green. I don't think you could blame anybody for not wanting it on their doorstep, but that is a very weak argument as can be seen from the comments above, from my point of view i don't want to see the country littered with these mickey mouse power stations that i believe will have a very short lifespan i would prefer large nuclear power stations. Yes we do need power and if they don't start building nuclear power stations soon we will be short of power in years to come,nobody has yet come up with a viable alternative, wind farms that produce very little and then only with the right kind of wind, wave power and all of the other silly idea's. Is it GREEN yes(i joke) we are going to have ships bringing all sorts of fuel halfway round the world we are ruining land in other countries to provide us with some of the fuels used in these mickey mouse power stations so its about as green as the sky. So like i said before the only way forward is nuclear.

I don't disagree with you at all on the nuclear option ohec. Regarding Green credentials it is important to consider what is the niche benefit of biomass stations such as this in the overall power generation portfolio. This station would not be required 24x7 and would probably kick in when demand was highest, especially in winter when true "green" supplies can be at their most unreliable. Its main virtues apart from its reliability are that a) it can be fired up at fairly short notice and b) its feedstock is plentiful, multi sourced and it has growing potential for local markets despite what is claimed on the website (which is wrong on this point). If the council chose to collaborate on a CHP scheme the station's value would increase further but inept, weak and badly informed councillors will miss this opportunity as they have missed so many others in this town.

[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote:
There are three main arguments here, (1) is location, (2) is need and (3) is it green. I don't think you could blame anybody for not wanting it on their doorstep, but that is a very weak argument as can be seen from the comments above, from my point of view i don't want to see the country littered with these mickey mouse power stations that i believe will have a very short lifespan i would prefer large nuclear power stations. Yes we do need power and if they don't start building nuclear power stations soon we will be short of power in years to come,nobody has yet come up with a viable alternative, wind farms that produce very little and then only with the right kind of wind, wave power and all of the other silly idea's. Is it GREEN yes(i joke) we are going to have ships bringing all sorts of fuel halfway round the world we are ruining land in other countries to provide us with some of the fuels used in these mickey mouse power stations so its about as green as the sky. So like i said before the only way forward is nuclear.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with you at all on the nuclear option ohec. Regarding Green credentials it is important to consider what is the niche benefit of biomass stations such as this in the overall power generation portfolio. This station would not be required 24x7 and would probably kick in when demand was highest, especially in winter when true "green" supplies can be at their most unreliable. Its main virtues apart from its reliability are that a) it can be fired up at fairly short notice and b) its feedstock is plentiful, multi sourced and it has growing potential for local markets despite what is claimed on the website (which is wrong on this point). If the council chose to collaborate on a CHP scheme the station's value would increase further but inept, weak and badly informed councillors will miss this opportunity as they have missed so many others in this town.Andy Locks Heath

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

Torchie I just got out an old chart the Docking area at the moment is 500 meters long, 120 meters wide at a depth off 5.8 meters deep at the lowest astromical tide. it can be made into 1000 meters long very easy if need be.

As you say, an 'old' docking chart which doesn't indicate that the unnecessary dredging has continued for fifty years when no vessel required it. As for how easy it is to clear the channel, I'm sure it is but why do this when a few miles up the water there are berths with the required depth, no width restrictions, no NPA restrictions and freely available industrial land? I'd have a lot more respect if you just admitted to being a NIMBY instead of turning up spurious reasons why the Helius plan can't go ahead as proposed.

I all ways said its in the wrong location.
It would not need dredging as it all ways been kept clear, and its more than wide enough its had an Iron ore bulk carrier lay up there for a few mths, and if it can take one of those ships it will be able to take any wood chip bulk carrier

Southy you are confused. There were bulk carriers laid up in Southampton Water (I remember 4 at one time) but they were moored further up north of Hamble Oil terminal between Netley and After Barn, and not off the Power Station where there are no ship moorings. If you have a chart (which I am looking at right now) there is no ship channel or dredged mooring between the power station and the existing main channel, only the creek used for cooling water. For the third time there is no deepwater quay for biomass discharge anywhere near Fawley power station.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out[/p][/quote]Torchie I just got out an old chart the Docking area at the moment is 500 meters long, 120 meters wide at a depth off 5.8 meters deep at the lowest astromical tide. it can be made into 1000 meters long very easy if need be.[/p][/quote]As you say, an 'old' docking chart which doesn't indicate that the unnecessary dredging has continued for fifty years when no vessel required it. As for how easy it is to clear the channel, I'm sure it is but why do this when a few miles up the water there are berths with the required depth, no width restrictions, no NPA restrictions and freely available industrial land? I'd have a lot more respect if you just admitted to being a NIMBY instead of turning up spurious reasons why the Helius plan can't go ahead as proposed.[/p][/quote]I all ways said its in the wrong location.
It would not need dredging as it all ways been kept clear, and its more than wide enough its had an Iron ore bulk carrier lay up there for a few mths, and if it can take one of those ships it will be able to take any wood chip bulk carrier[/p][/quote]Southy you are confused. There were bulk carriers laid up in Southampton Water (I remember 4 at one time) but they were moored further up north of Hamble Oil terminal between Netley and After Barn, and not off the Power Station where there are no ship moorings. If you have a chart (which I am looking at right now) there is no ship channel or dredged mooring between the power station and the existing main channel, only the creek used for cooling water. For the third time there is no deepwater quay for biomass discharge anywhere near Fawley power station.Andy Locks Heath

Saint&amp;Sinner wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples

Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.

Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out

Southy that is rubbish. This power station was planned before the oil crisis of 1973 made oil fired stations uneconomical. It does not burn &quot;waste" oil as you say- it burns heavy bunker fuel oil supplied by pipeline from the oil refinery next door and was designed from the beginning to do so - hence its location. As for your coal idea You are getting confused with Fawley "B" which was planned as a coal fired plant in the early 80s but never built, and no deepwater channel was ever dredged because it never got past the planning stage. I still have all the plans in a box in my loft! You seem to be confusing the Fawley "A" cooling water channels with a deepwater quayside which is completely different and innapropriate.

Andy thats why the deep water channel is on marine charts I given the measurement off the Docking area, Bunker oil is what is known as waste oil Andy, the plans for the power station was drawn up in the 50's.
The cooling water channel was where the 1000 meter dock was going to be, if you go down there you can still see the test piles that mark out the area of the dock

Another mistake from Southy
Bunker Fuel is not 'waste', it is heavy oil used by most ships as fuel and is specially produced at most Oil Refineries including Fawley.
It is also relatively expensive so can hardly be described as 'waste'.
Andy is also correct about the large bulk carriers being laid up for a while off Hamble

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Saint&Sinner[/bold] wrote:
It would be better sited next to Fawley Power Station, plenty of room as plans for a fawley B station were shelved. It has a large deep dock for the material to be shipped in - Simples[/p][/quote]Good argument apart from the 'large deep dock' which it hasn't got and the land belongs to another company that doesn't have plans to sell it.[/p][/quote]Torchie you may not know the area to well but the intake channel was dredge out to be able to take large bulk coal ships, the first plans for Fawley power station was for a coal blast furnace it was after it was built but before the plants was put in was it decided to make it an waste oil burner power plant. It do have a large deep dock, and as for the land the docks is not selling the land and do not plan to sell it, The land will be rented out[/p][/quote]Southy that is rubbish. This power station was planned before the oil crisis of 1973 made oil fired stations uneconomical. It does not burn "waste" oil as you say- it burns heavy bunker fuel oil supplied by pipeline from the oil refinery next door and was designed from the beginning to do so - hence its location. As for your coal idea You are getting confused with Fawley "B" which was planned as a coal fired plant in the early 80s but never built, and no deepwater channel was ever dredged because it never got past the planning stage. I still have all the plans in a box in my loft! You seem to be confusing the Fawley "A" cooling water channels with a deepwater quayside which is completely different and innapropriate.[/p][/quote]Andy thats why the deep water channel is on marine charts I given the measurement off the Docking area, Bunker oil is what is known as waste oil Andy, the plans for the power station was drawn up in the 50's.
The cooling water channel was where the 1000 meter dock was going to be, if you go down there you can still see the test piles that mark out the area of the dock[/p][/quote]Another mistake from Southy
Bunker Fuel is not 'waste', it is heavy oil used by most ships as fuel and is specially produced at most Oil Refineries including Fawley.
It is also relatively expensive so can hardly be described as 'waste'.
Andy is also correct about the large bulk carriers being laid up for a while off Hamblephil maccavity

Brusher Mills wrote:
Think it looks alright, will make the area look better, next to a busy road, scrap metal and the Freemantle area. Makes since to build it in an already industrial area.

How can you say its in an Industrial area? Its location is only 250 metres away from a highly populated residential area! However it looks at the end of the day its a power station being proposed in a residential area.

[quote][p][bold]Brusher Mills[/bold] wrote:
Think it looks alright, will make the area look better, next to a busy road, scrap metal and the Freemantle area. Makes since to build it in an already industrial area.[/p][/quote]How can you say its in an Industrial area? Its location is only 250 metres away from a highly populated residential area! However it looks at the end of the day its a power station being proposed in a residential area.Jamez3000

The Salv wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”

Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.

Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.

99% of them so called jobs will not be jobs for the locals, like the building of the plant will be done mostly by the building contractors traveling work force, and it will not be 240 jobs from day one to the day its finished, more than likely there will be only about 30 people working there at one time, the jobs that will come after the plant is finished you will have dock workers doing the quay side stuff so no extra full time jobs there, and transport will not employ more people, the only extra jobs will be the techical staff who will be bought in to run the place from any where around the world.

You my lovely are getting worse with every post you make! Are you for real or are you pulling everyones chain?

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rhombus[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”[/p][/quote]Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.[/p][/quote]Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.[/p][/quote]99% of them so called jobs will not be jobs for the locals, like the building of the plant will be done mostly by the building contractors traveling work force, and it will not be 240 jobs from day one to the day its finished, more than likely there will be only about 30 people working there at one time, the jobs that will come after the plant is finished you will have dock workers doing the quay side stuff so no extra full time jobs there, and transport will not employ more people, the only extra jobs will be the techical staff who will be bought in to run the place from any where around the world.[/p][/quote]You my lovely are getting worse with every post you make! Are you for real or are you pulling everyones chain?IronLady2010

The Salv wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”

Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.

Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.

99% of them so called jobs will not be jobs for the locals, like the building of the plant will be done mostly by the building contractors traveling work force, and it will not be 240 jobs from day one to the day its finished, more than likely there will be only about 30 people working there at one time, the jobs that will come after the plant is finished you will have dock workers doing the quay side stuff so no extra full time jobs there, and transport will not employ more people, the only extra jobs will be the techical staff who will be bought in to run the place from any where around the world.

You my lovely are getting worse with every post you make! Are you for real or are you pulling everyones chain?

Where do you get the facts of 99% of jobs won't be local and how would TUSC rectify your statement?

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rhombus[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”[/p][/quote]Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.[/p][/quote]Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.[/p][/quote]99% of them so called jobs will not be jobs for the locals, like the building of the plant will be done mostly by the building contractors traveling work force, and it will not be 240 jobs from day one to the day its finished, more than likely there will be only about 30 people working there at one time, the jobs that will come after the plant is finished you will have dock workers doing the quay side stuff so no extra full time jobs there, and transport will not employ more people, the only extra jobs will be the techical staff who will be bought in to run the place from any where around the world.[/p][/quote]You my lovely are getting worse with every post you make! Are you for real or are you pulling everyones chain?[/p][/quote]Where do you get the facts of 99% of jobs won't be local and how would TUSC rectify your statement?IronLady2010

The Salv wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”

Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.

Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.

99% of them so called jobs will not be jobs for the locals, like the building of the plant will be done mostly by the building contractors traveling work force, and it will not be 240 jobs from day one to the day its finished, more than likely there will be only about 30 people working there at one time, the jobs that will come after the plant is finished you will have dock workers doing the quay side stuff so no extra full time jobs there, and transport will not employ more people, the only extra jobs will be the techical staff who will be bought in to run the place from any where around the world.

You my lovely are getting worse with every post you make! Are you for real or are you pulling everyones chain?

Where do you get the facts of 99% of jobs won't be local and how would TUSC rectify your statement?

Also Mouthy, these workers from abroad, I guess they'll bring their own food and clothes so as not to include in our local economy.

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rhombus[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: What's this, an industrial plant being built in a working dock bringing jobs and prosperity to the area and keeping and producing key engineering skills for the future and giving young people hope of a career. It's an utter disgrace!”[/p][/quote]Its fine but do you live under its proposed shadow? Thought not.[/p][/quote]Oh right, didnt realise the only people that are allowed to have a say were NIMBY's.
.
If you want to campaign about something how about letting Nuclear Subs into a working port that has no benefit to the City what so ever, at least this will create jobs and industry.[/p][/quote]99% of them so called jobs will not be jobs for the locals, like the building of the plant will be done mostly by the building contractors traveling work force, and it will not be 240 jobs from day one to the day its finished, more than likely there will be only about 30 people working there at one time, the jobs that will come after the plant is finished you will have dock workers doing the quay side stuff so no extra full time jobs there, and transport will not employ more people, the only extra jobs will be the techical staff who will be bought in to run the place from any where around the world.[/p][/quote]You my lovely are getting worse with every post you make! Are you for real or are you pulling everyones chain?[/p][/quote]Where do you get the facts of 99% of jobs won't be local and how would TUSC rectify your statement?[/p][/quote]Also Mouthy, these workers from abroad, I guess they'll bring their own food and clothes so as not to include in our local economy.IronLady2010

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?

I'm sure the hackers can swing the vote. You know the hackers whom Mouthy is obsessed with. According to Mouthy every website is hacked and we can't believe a word, we all have to listen to Mouthy's OFFICIAL statements as they are genuine. Love him x

[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?[/p][/quote]I'm sure the hackers can swing the vote. You know the hackers whom Mouthy is obsessed with. According to Mouthy every website is hacked and we can't believe a word, we all have to listen to Mouthy's OFFICIAL statements as they are genuine. Love him xIronLady2010

Brusher Mills wrote:
Think it looks alright, will make the area look better, next to a busy road, scrap metal and the Freemantle area. Makes since to build it in an already industrial area.

How can you say its in an Industrial area? Its location is only 250 metres away from a highly populated residential area! However it looks at the end of the day its a power station being proposed in a residential area.

Sorry residential?
How many houses are on the six lanes of traffic called Millbrook rd?
Then when your past them you have Millbrook train station ( or are you trying to get that renamed) then a path & then you have to go even further back to the proposed site so how the hell's this residential?
We have houses in Millbrook but we have an industrial estate as well as every other industrial/commercia
l area in this city.
We had Marchwood power station did anyone complain that it was to close to houses & get it pulled down?
I have a friend who lives in Marchwood quite happily with or with out a power station.
Did any of you kick up about the new Gas power station on the Waterside? NO why not this isn't far from houses.
do you think this would matter if Fawley went up or Hamble?
This is far enough away & if the fire & safety measures failed you would have a big fire a Nuclear plant would wipe the area out if it went & how much would your house prices drop if they built a nuclear plant there?
I live in Lordshill in a two bedroom terrace house any one with a three/two bed semi who own their property & would swap I'd be willing to talk to my wife & contacting you & I wouldn't be part of the NO campaign

[quote][p][bold]Jamez3000[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Brusher Mills[/bold] wrote:
Think it looks alright, will make the area look better, next to a busy road, scrap metal and the Freemantle area. Makes since to build it in an already industrial area.[/p][/quote]How can you say its in an Industrial area? Its location is only 250 metres away from a highly populated residential area! However it looks at the end of the day its a power station being proposed in a residential area.[/p][/quote]Sorry residential?
How many houses are on the six lanes of traffic called Millbrook rd?
Then when your past them you have Millbrook train station ( or are you trying to get that renamed) then a path & then you have to go even further back to the proposed site so how the hell's this residential?
We have houses in Millbrook but we have an industrial estate as well as every other industrial/commercia
l area in this city.
We had Marchwood power station did anyone complain that it was to close to houses & get it pulled down?
I have a friend who lives in Marchwood quite happily with or with out a power station.
Did any of you kick up about the new Gas power station on the Waterside? NO why not this isn't far from houses.
do you think this would matter if Fawley went up or Hamble?
This is far enough away & if the fire & safety measures failed you would have a big fire a Nuclear plant would wipe the area out if it went & how much would your house prices drop if they built a nuclear plant there?
I live in Lordshill in a two bedroom terrace house any one with a three/two bed semi who own their property & would swap I'd be willing to talk to my wife & contacting you & I wouldn't be part of the NO campaignloosehead

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?

Arthur I suggested that they should go to talks with Helius & get hot water for heating & washing cheap from the plant for the local area.
They won't try to get the best for all the NIMBY's only think of themselves & refuse to negotiate but just say NO.
It's called CHP

[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?[/p][/quote]Arthur I suggested that they should go to talks with Helius & get hot water for heating & washing cheap from the plant for the local area.
They won't try to get the best for all the NIMBY's only think of themselves & refuse to negotiate but just say NO.
It's called CHPloosehead

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?

Arthur I suggested that they should go to talks with Helius &amp; get hot water for heating &amp; washing cheap from the plant for the local area.
They won't try to get the best for all the NIMBY's only think of themselves &amp; refuse to negotiate but just say NO.
It's called CHP

The point is Loosehead, this will rightly go ahead. Right now, people have a choice, make the wrong choice and they have to live with it!

[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?[/p][/quote]Arthur I suggested that they should go to talks with Helius & get hot water for heating & washing cheap from the plant for the local area.
They won't try to get the best for all the NIMBY's only think of themselves & refuse to negotiate but just say NO.
It's called CHP[/p][/quote]The point is Loosehead, this will rightly go ahead. Right now, people have a choice, make the wrong choice and they have to live with it!IronLady2010

Cookiecutter wrote:
Britain has no tree's with which to speak off and the New Forest is a joke around the world with barely a tree to be seen oh lots of bushes and maybe the immigrants think them as tree's since most come from a dessert, Pakistan or Poland in today's Britain. But no matter how high you build the stack there is always fallout. I don't care how stringent rules and regulations are made there will always be someone who comes along and say Oppp! a valve stuck and it caused a leak. Or heaven forbid another earthquake comes along like in Japan and everything get washed out to sea. And then there's the oil platform out at sea that exploded in fire killing so many people fish and wildlife. We really do need to think this biomass energy production through and use only the type of product that causes no damage to land, air or sea and burning wood, whether in pellet form or as broken furniture, is definitely not a good idea.

go curl up in a ball and live in a cave then

[quote][p][bold]Cookiecutter[/bold] wrote:
Britain has no tree's with which to speak off and the New Forest is a joke around the world with barely a tree to be seen oh lots of bushes and maybe the immigrants think them as tree's since most come from a dessert, Pakistan or Poland in today's Britain. But no matter how high you build the stack there is always fallout. I don't care how stringent rules and regulations are made there will always be someone who comes along and say Oppp! a valve stuck and it caused a leak. Or heaven forbid another earthquake comes along like in Japan and everything get washed out to sea. And then there's the oil platform out at sea that exploded in fire killing so many people fish and wildlife. We really do need to think this biomass energy production through and use only the type of product that causes no damage to land, air or sea and burning wood, whether in pellet form or as broken furniture, is definitely not a good idea.[/p][/quote]go curl up in a ball and live in a cave thenforest hump

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?

Arthur I suggested that they should go to talks with Helius &amp; get hot water for heating &amp; washing cheap from the plant for the local area.
They won't try to get the best for all the NIMBY's only think of themselves &amp; refuse to negotiate but just say NO.
It's called CHP

The point is Loosehead, this will rightly go ahead. Right now, people have a choice, make the wrong choice and they have to live with it!

One way or another, this will go-ahead. No Company is going to spend so much money for it to be declined.

They have already researched got planning (unofficially) etc.

Watch and wait................

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?[/p][/quote]Arthur I suggested that they should go to talks with Helius & get hot water for heating & washing cheap from the plant for the local area.
They won't try to get the best for all the NIMBY's only think of themselves & refuse to negotiate but just say NO.
It's called CHP[/p][/quote]The point is Loosehead, this will rightly go ahead. Right now, people have a choice, make the wrong choice and they have to live with it![/p][/quote]One way or another, this will go-ahead. No Company is going to spend so much money for it to be declined.
They have already researched got planning (unofficially) etc.
Watch and wait................IronLady2010

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?

Arthur I suggested that they should go to talks with Helius &amp; get hot water for heating &amp; washing cheap from the plant for the local area.
They won't try to get the best for all the NIMBY's only think of themselves &amp; refuse to negotiate but just say NO.
It's called CHP

The point is Loosehead, this will rightly go ahead. Right now, people have a choice, make the wrong choice and they have to live with it!

One way or another, this will go-ahead. No Company is going to spend so much money for it to be declined.

They have already researched got planning (unofficially) etc.

Watch and wait................

Probably why Labour got control?????

Hundreds of Union workers to say yes sir Bahh Bahhhh, how much woll would you like bahhhhhh

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?[/p][/quote]Arthur I suggested that they should go to talks with Helius & get hot water for heating & washing cheap from the plant for the local area.
They won't try to get the best for all the NIMBY's only think of themselves & refuse to negotiate but just say NO.
It's called CHP[/p][/quote]The point is Loosehead, this will rightly go ahead. Right now, people have a choice, make the wrong choice and they have to live with it![/p][/quote]One way or another, this will go-ahead. No Company is going to spend so much money for it to be declined.
They have already researched got planning (unofficially) etc.
Watch and wait................[/p][/quote]Probably why Labour got control?????
Hundreds of Union workers to say yes sir Bahh Bahhhh, how much woll would you like bahhhhhhIronLady2010

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?

Arthur I suggested that they should go to talks with Helius &amp; get hot water for heating &amp; washing cheap from the plant for the local area.
They won't try to get the best for all the NIMBY's only think of themselves &amp; refuse to negotiate but just say NO.
It's called CHP

The point is Loosehead, this will rightly go ahead. Right now, people have a choice, make the wrong choice and they have to live with it!

One way or another, this will go-ahead. No Company is going to spend so much money for it to be declined.

They have already researched got planning (unofficially) etc.

Watch and wait................

But they could have negotiated a sweet deal as the waste hot water could have been used in the same way the Geo Thermal water's used to heat their homes & provide hot water.
A few who saw this as devaluing their homes kicked up got others to believe in their argument & as with the council workers they can't see an opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
Funny how Labour put it in their manifesto so close to elections yet Don Thomas thought that Helius had ticked all the boxes?

[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote:
a offer of free electric for the locals in freemantle might swing it their way?[/p][/quote]Arthur I suggested that they should go to talks with Helius & get hot water for heating & washing cheap from the plant for the local area.
They won't try to get the best for all the NIMBY's only think of themselves & refuse to negotiate but just say NO.
It's called CHP[/p][/quote]The point is Loosehead, this will rightly go ahead. Right now, people have a choice, make the wrong choice and they have to live with it![/p][/quote]One way or another, this will go-ahead. No Company is going to spend so much money for it to be declined.
They have already researched got planning (unofficially) etc.
Watch and wait................[/p][/quote]But they could have negotiated a sweet deal as the waste hot water could have been used in the same way the Geo Thermal water's used to heat their homes & provide hot water.
A few who saw this as devaluing their homes kicked up got others to believe in their argument & as with the council workers they can't see an opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
Funny how Labour put it in their manifesto so close to elections yet Don Thomas thought that Helius had ticked all the boxes?loosehead